Charging oneself?

[Dirial]

Just read over the (2) Charge action because of the Executioner discussion in the Guild category. This silly question came to my mind:

 

Can a model charge itself? Shouldn't be possible, but is it forbidden by the rules?

 

Charge is a Tactical Action, which can target the model itself. Then, you move the model in a straight line. This move has to end with the charged model in the engagment range of the charging model.

 

The real question is therefore: Is a model in its own melee range? Shouldn't be, but I couldn't find conclusive evidence.

 

Follow-up question: If I'm wrong and you can charge youself, what happens to the melee attacks? Those are Attack Actions, which can not be targeted at the model itself.

[dgraz]

This is also a very silly conversation and I hope it does not receive a FAQ.

Thank you.

[hypoking]

Ridiculous even, but unfortunately it also seems to be a valid line of reasoning.

 

Just want to lay this out all in one post.

 

Target a model in LOS. Move this model up to its charge in a straight line. This model must end with the target model within its engagement range or this action may not be taken . This model then takes two Range :swipe Attack Actions against the target model. Each of these actions must have an AP cost of 1. A model may not declare this action if it is engaged (see Engagement, pg. 44) or if it has a CG of "-".

 

First sentence specifies targeting restrictions. Sole requirement is los. As per page 40, models always have los to themselves.

 

Second sentence specifies how the charging model moves. No bearing on whether the model can charge himself.

 

Third sentence specifies how the charging model must end with the charge target in its engagement range. As per page 40 a model is considered to be in range 'if the distance between the two bases is equal or less than the range of the action.' Given that the overwhelming majority of tactical actions which specify a range that I've seen played in this game are considered to have sufficient range to target their user most models should be considered to be in range of their own melee. The text also specifies engagement range over engagement.

 

Fourth sentence specifies the fun bits of the charge, how the model generates makes attack actions. Nowhere does it say that the movement or the action is contingent in anyway on charger's ability to successfully execute those attacks. Thanks to Mancha there is already at least one model in the game who can successfully complete a legal charge action without being able to throw a single punch.

 

Weird and offensively silly as this seems the reasoning is legit.

[The Godlyness]

Wait this is still going on? Is this like that Ophelia thread where you could place yourself 8" away and feel good about yourself? I just don't want to think about how people would want this to work. But hey if I can just freely move killjoy his charge and pretend it was a walk hey why not right. Please shut this thread down before a newer player sees it an ruins friendships.

[necroon]

Ridiculous even, but unfortunately it also seems to be a valid line of reasoning.

 

Just want to lay this out all in one post.

 

 

First sentence specifies targeting restrictions. Sole requirement is los. As per page 40, models always have los to themselves.

 

Second sentence specifies how the charging model moves. No bearing on whether the model can charge himself.

 

Third sentence specifies how the charging model must end with the charge target in its engagement range. As per page 40 a model is considered to be in range 'if the distance between the two bases is equal or less than the range of the action.' Given that the overwhelming majority of tactical actions which specify a range that I've seen played in this game are considered to have sufficient range to target their user most models should be considered to be in range of their own melee. The text also specifies engagement range over engagement.

 

Fourth sentence specifies the fun bits of the charge, how the model generates makes attack actions. Nowhere does it say that the movement or the action is contingent in anyway on charger's ability to successfully execute those attacks. Thanks to Mancha there is already at least one model in the game who can successfully complete a legal charge action without being able to throw a single punch.

 

Weird and offensively silly as this seems the reasoning is legit.

 

 

Engagement range calls out two models: If we wish to play the grammar game than I'd say you can't "end in the engagement range" if only one model is involved in the scenario. Yay grammar. 

In addition models are never engaged with friendly models and this is called out during the same paragraph as engagement ranges. 

If you wish to state that you can engage yourself you must also abide by the fact that you may not charge while engaged. I'd no sooner let you end a charge engaged with yourself than start one engaged with yourself: you can't have it one way and not the other. 

 

Either way you look at it whether you use common sense or "loop holes" nobody is going to let you take the action with the above being true. 

 

With that being said can someone tell me when taking a 2AP CG would be more beneficial than walking twice? 

The attacks have to be on yourself (which they cannot be so that's lost AP unless we wish to debate what happens after you charge yourself and than have to take actions you can't take) except in the case of Gremlin war pigs and other models that charge for 1AP which is probably why we are having this conversation in the first place. 

[solkan]

That's odd.  Nothing I see in the Charge rules allows the statement

 

This model then takes two Range :claw: Attack Actions against the target model.

to be optional.  Leading to the conclusion that if you cannot perform the attacks against the charge target, the charge is invalid.

[hypoking]

Engagement range calls out two models: If we wish to play the grammar game than I'd say you can't "end in the engagement range" if only one model is involved in the scenario. Yay grammar. 

In addition models are never engaged with friendly models and this is called out during the same paragraph as engagement ranges. 

If you wish to state that you can engage yourself you must also abide by the fact that you may not charge while engaged. I'd no sooner let you end a charge engaged with yourself than start one engaged with yourself: you can't have it one way and not the other.

 

Engagement range, not engagement. Dumb as it seems there is a difference between the two as denoted by fear given form. Charging does not involve engagement. Engagement range does not specify two models. The base text for range does, but that's never stopped anyone from targeting themselves with take a swig or any other similar ranged ability.

 

The relevant text is on pgs 39, 40, and 44 of the big book if you want to take a look.

 

Edit: @ Solkan, you're right, its not optional, but at that point the attacks fall under the normal 'impossible action' rules and are just wasted. Same fashion as if a war pig had to charge someone in Hamelin or Rusty's no charge auras.

[necroon]

Engagement range, not engagement. Dumb as it seems there is a difference between the two as denoted by fear given form. Charging does not involve engagement. Engagement range does not specify two models. The base text for range does, but that's never stopped anyone from targeting themselves with take a swig or any other similar ranged ability.

 

The relevant text is on pgs 39, 40, and 44 of the big book if you want to take a look.

 

Edit: @ Solkan, your right, its not optional, but at that point the attacks fall under the normal 'impossible action' rules and are just wasted.

I disagree with you: Not only your interpretation of the rules but your intent here. 

And I refuse to use an Upgrade or ability as a rules basis. Fears Given Form serves to assist your argument but it's not a rule. Make your argument with the rulebook as that is where the rules are. 

[HalcyonSeraph]

You can't attack models your not engaged with and attacks made with a charge are 1 AP actions that follow all rules thereof. If you were able to charge yourself and therefore strike yourself by that logic Id think all Malifaux models with ranged and melee attacks would not be able to make ranged attacks.

Also while your engaged you can't charge so if your end goal is to make 2 melee attacks on yourself I'd think your charge would fail because your already at yourself... If that's the way you want to think about it.

This is also a very silly conversation and I hope it does not receive a FAQ.

 

Your first sentence isn't actually true. You can attack friendlies all long and you are never engaged by friendlies. So you can attack models you aren't engaged with. 

 

I still don't think you can charge yourself but that's not why. You explicitly cannot attack YOURSELF and so I think you cannot declare a charge against a model you can't legally attack. 

[necroon]

Your first sentence isn't actually true. You can attack friendlies all long and you are never engaged by friendlies. So you can attack models you aren't engaged with. 

 

I still don't think you can charge yourself but that's not why. You explicitly cannot attack YOURSELF and so I think you cannot declare a charge against a model you can't legally attack. 

 

Thanks... I think. 

Honestly I'm going to step away from this: I'm pretty done. 

It's not going anywhere and I'm certainly neither providing anything insightful nor is there anything to learn here. 

[Dirial]

To clarify: I didn't begin this thread because I wanted this to work. I began it because it's clear that it shouldn't work but I did not find a rule that conclusively forbid it. So, I came to the forums for help, asking what I was missing.

 

So far, I don't see anything conclusive and that's a problem. Pointing out that it shouldn't be FAQ'd because it's silly, as the intent is clear, doesn't solve that problem. If the rules allow it (which isn't proven, mind) it's only a matter of time before someone gets the wrong idea again and then I would like to point them to a ruling.

 

Now, this silly but possible rule interpretation has been pointed out. For me, that is the end of it. May the higher powers decide what to do with it. Mods, if you have the time, this can be closed.

[Ratty]

BTW, I'm very sure you must be able to make a legal Attack at the end of your charge.

But I can't say the reason for this. Justin is off this week at a trade show, so I would suggest you play it that you must be able to make a legal Attack against the target of the Charge until something more definite comes in.

[Morgan Vening]

Well, no. At that point, because the attacks are not an optional part of charge, the entire charge is just wasted. You can't use charge for the movement; the attacks are part of the charge.

But wouldn't that (and most of this discussion, with regards "attacks being compulsory") fall under the Pandora Self Harm rule? At the point you're allowed to finish the move, charging yourself isn't illegal. That you're then required to attack just means nothing happens.

 

I agree with Dirial that what's being suggested SHOULDN'T happen (and I'd leave the table on someone who tried and insisted they could), but I'm not seeing much that apparently prohibits it. 

[Dracomax]

Of course, I'm positive that charging also requires that you move. SInce a movement of 0" is not a move, as per the FAQ, I'd say that it wouldn't count as a charge at that point.

[Morgan Vening]

But nothing precludes movement. That's the point being argued, of moving with the Charge, without the attending other issues.

 

No, you shouldn't. But it doesn't seem to be prohibited.

[HalcyonSeraph]

But wouldn't that (and most of this discussion, with regards "attacks being compulsory") fall under the Pandora Self Harm rule? At the point you're allowed to finish the move, charging yourself isn't illegal. That you're then required to attack just means nothing happens.

 

I agree with Dirial that what's being suggested SHOULDN'T happen (and I'd leave the table on someone who tried and insisted they could), but I'm not seeing much that apparently prohibits it. 

 

No, it would not be like the Pandora thing. Charging requires you to target a model that A) can be charged and That you can legally attack. Those are targeting requirements. If you cannot fulfill those you cannot declare that charge. 

[Ratty]

No, it would not be like the Pandora thing. Charging requires you to target a model that A) can be charged and That you can legally attack. Those are targeting requirements. If you cannot fulfill those you cannot declare that charge.

I would add C ) to that

A ) Can be charged

B ) That you can legally Attack

C ) That your Cg move is able to put you into a position where that Attack is in range.

But as I have said, I know that this is how it's meant to be played. But I am not a liberty to say how I know. SO I would suggest people play it this way until Justin gets back from the convention, then he can deal with it all.

[HalcyonSeraph]

I would add C ) to that

A ) Can be charged

B ) That you can legally Attack

C ) That your Cg move is able to put you into a position where that Attack is in range.

But as I have said, I know that this is how it's meant to be played. But I am not a liberty to say how I know. SO I would suggest people play it this way until Justin gets back from the convention, then he can deal with it all.

 

Sure, yes, and also D) That you have LOS to. 

[Morgan Vening]

No, it would not be like the Pandora thing. Charging requires you to target a model that A) can be charged and That you can legally attack. Those are targeting requirements. If you cannot fulfill those you cannot declare that charge. 

I can't see those assumptions in the rule. Hypoking layed it out in the previous page. I'll split it into it's integral points.

 

Target a model in LOS.

Move this model up to its charge in a straight line.

This model must end with the target model within its engagement range or this action may not be taken .

This model then takes two Range [claw] Attack Actions against the target model.

Each of these actions must have an AP cost of 1.

A model may not declare this action if it is engaged (see Engagement, pg. 44) or if it has a CG of "-".

 

Taking each separate sentence, assuming I charge myself while not engaged.

1) I'm in LOS to myself.

2) I move my charge distance in a straight line.

3) First Exclusion. I'm within my own engagement range. Passed.

4) I can't attack myself, but that's not an exclusion (like the Pandora Self Harm thing).

5) Irrelevant, due to failure of point 4.

6) Second Exclusion, I'm not engaged, and I don't have a CG of "-". Passed.

 

I think it SHOULD be played the other way, and I think it will get a ruling disallowing charging yourself (cause frankly it's a silly idea). But I don't see anything in that explicitly restricts it. Stuff like Alyce's Snares cause it to fail at the First Exclusion. But there seems to be nothing legally wrong with it.

[Dracomax]

I think the intention is that 4 is an exclusion. If the attack is something that is required for charge, then everything works as intended. If it isn't, then we have the problem. The issue is that we have at least one example where a similar action does not view it as exclusionary.

 

So, in my opinion, what we need is clarification as to whether the attack is in this case a mandatory point for the charge to happen at all.

[mattyboy22]

Congrats guys, I've played minis games for a long, long time and it took other player bases much longer to reach arguments like this!

[AgrilusHunter]

That's because we paid for the full ten minute course.

[The Godlyness]

But I didn't give you any money what did I pay with.

[necroon]

Okay: deep breaths over here and my apolagies to the OP for my comment and any offense that s/he may have taken from it.

I think the "problem" should stem from the fact that your charge target (being you) is already within your engagement range as your declaring the charge action.

From what I see from the charge rules they seem to have suffered, in my mind, from being a very specific Step - by - step guide that, like many specific things do, fails to address a scenario or ideal that only a war - gamer could have come up with.

Looking over the rules I really do feel like the 2 AP Tactical Action known as "Charge" should specify "other model" however, with that being said, I do not gain from reading charge that moving X inches "towards myself" would be allowed. The argument certainly could be made but it's really sketchy at best and Malifaux really has never been about sketchy stuff like that.

I do however want to echo my apolagies to the OP again.

[Mister Shine]

[HalcyonSeraph]

So to sum up: No one thinks it should be allowed, and no one would allow it in their games or tournaments, but we argued for 3 pages over whether it is technically allowed via RAW, and we won't get any clarification for a month and a half at the earliest.